This appeal arises out of several consolidated proceedings before the Environmental Court and
the Windsor Superior Court relating to defendants' development of a diner, private club, gas station,
and convenience store in the Town of Hartford. The sole question presented is whether the Town's
approval of defendants' project included permission to build a retaining wall on property owned by
the Town's fire department. The Environmental Court determined that the Town had not approved
defendants' planned retaining wall. We find no error in that determination, and affirm.

In the spring of 1999, Hartford's zoning board of adjustment and planning commission
approved defendants' proposed project. One approval condition required defendants to obtain an
easement for ingress and egress over, and the stockpiling of snow on, the Town's fire department
property in the westerly portion of the project. Defendants subsequently obtained a non-exclusive
easement from the Town for the purpose of ingress and egress to their property. The easement also
permits defendants to stockpile snow along the eastern boundary of the easement area so long as it
does not block the Town's access to the property. Although the easement allows defendants to make
any improvements necessary for ingress and egress, it states that any further improvements require
advance Town approval, and the easement may not be used for any other purpose.

The approved site plan for the project shows an unidentified line running diagonally across
the fire department property. Defendants contend that the unidentified line represents the foot of
their proposed retaining wall. The Environmental Court took evidence on the matter in the course
of the parties' litigation of various consolidated actions related to defendants' construction, including
the Town's complaint for injunctive relief requiring defendants to build the project in conformance
with the approved plans, the zoning board of adjustment's decision upholding the zoning
administrator's notice of violation for failure to construct the project in compliance with the
approved plans, and a public nuisance action the Town filed against defendants. After hearing the
evidence and considering the parties' arguments, the Environmental Court determined that the
unidentified line could not be "reasonably interpreted as the foot of a retaining wall, both because
the plan does not identify it as such, and because Defendant-Appellants did not seek to have the
later-acquired easement include the placement of a retaining wall on Fire Department property."
Defendants appeal that ruling, arguing that no evidence in the record supports it. By implication,
the court's decision means that defendants did not obtain proper approval to construct the wall.

We review the Environmental Court's findings and conclusions under our familiar standard.
Findings will be upheld if any credible evidence exists to support them, even if contrary evidence
appears in the record. Agency of Natural Resources v. Towns, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 790 A.2d 450, 453
(2001) (mem.). We will affirm the court's conclusions if the findings support them. Id. Moreover,
we defer to the trial court's credibility and evidentiary weight determinations because it is in the best
position to make them. Landmark Trust (USA), Inc. v. Goodhue, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 782 A.2d 1219,
1226 (2001). Applying those standards to this case leads us to conclude that the court did not err.

The court heard testimony from the Town's zoning administrator, defendant Mark Wood, an
engineer engaged by the Town, and defendants' project engineer. The zoning administrator testified
that she did not understand the unidentified line to depict a retaining wall. She explained that she
first became aware of the plan to construct the wall in April 2000 during an appeal defendants filed
relative to another phase of their project. The engineer who testified on the Town's behalf stated that
he would not expect someone working under his direction to understand that the unidentified line
was a retaining wall because it was not called out as a retaining wall on the site plan. The legend
on the site plan admitted into evidence does not include a notation concerning defendants' proposed
retaining wall. That evidence, in conjunction with the language in the easement document which
does not make any specific reference to the wall, was sufficient to sustain the court's findings and
conclusion on this issue.